In Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ETS/4102235/23), an employment tribunal found that an employee had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed due to her gender-critical beliefs.
The tribunal determined that Ms. Adams, who believes biological sex is real and distinct from gender identity, had been supportive of trans inclusion but held that survivors of sexual violence should have a choice about the sex of their support worker. Ms. Adams worked at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC), which had an occupational requirement of hiring only women and a policy supporting women, trans, and non-binary people. After the appointment of a new CEO, a trans woman without a gender recognition certificate, Ms. Adams grew concerned about ERCC’s stance on gender identity, which conflicted with her beliefs. When a service user questioned the gender of a colleague who had adopted a male name, Ms. Adams suggested responding that the colleague was born female but now identifies as non-binary.
Before an investigation was conducted, the CEO emailed staff, claiming Ms. Adams had humiliated the non-binary colleague, that they would not work together again, and implied Ms. Adams was transphobic. These actions were held to be gross misconduct, and her grievance was dismissed.
The tribunal concluded that Ms. Adams had been harassed, and that these actions also amounted to direct discrimination. Furthermore, the ERCC had indirectly discriminated against her by treating the expression of her gender-critical views as a disciplinary issue. The CEO’s own beliefs played a role in the decision to take disciplinary action. The tribunal found that ERCC had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, resulting in Ms. Adams’ constructive dismissal.
